The present invention relates to electronic house arrest monitoring (EHAM) systems, and more particularly to an EHAM system that provides automatic fee collection from its users.
EHAM systems are known in the art. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,885,571; 4,918,432 and 4,952,913, issued to Pauley et al., all of which are incorporated herein by reference. As indicated in those references, house arrest (a court-ordered mandate that requires an individual to remain at a specific monitoring location, e.g., his or her house, at specified times) represents a very significant and viable alternative to conventional incarceration and other court ordered restrictions, especially those imposed on individuals who have been found guilty of non-violent crimes.
Such systems fulfill a valuable need in that they allow a relatively large number of individuals who have been ordered by a court to remain under house arrest, or who are under parole or probation requirements to remain at certain locations (monitoring locations) at specified times, to be electronically monitored for compliance with whatever restrictions have been imposed. Such electronic monitoring can advantageously be carried out at a fraction of the cost of incarceration of the monitored individuals; and also at a much reduced cost over conventional probation/parole monitoring procedures. Further, an electronic monitoring system offers the advantage of reducing the physical contact between a monitoring officer, e.g., a probation or parole officer, and the monitored individual, which physical contact can at certain times and certain locations pose a potential danger to the officer.
A typical EHAM system includes an electronic detection circuit, e.g., a transmitter tag that is securely attached, e.g., to a limb of an individual to be monitored, and a field monitoring device (FMD) that is mounted within the location where the individual is to remain (the monitoring location, or remote location). The transmitter tag periodically transmits a proximity signal that uniquely identifies its wearer. If the offender is within range of the FMD, i.e., at the designated house arrest monitoring location, the FMD receives and logs the identifying signal. If the offender is not within range of the FMD, i.e., not at the monitoring location, the FMD notes the absence of the proximity signal. Periodically or as needed, telecommunicative contact is established between the FMD and a central monitoring system (CMS) at a central location so that the information received by the FMD can be uploaded (or transmitted) to the CMS. Such telecommunicative contact can be established by accessing a communications network with the FMD via a telecommunicative link (or communications link), e.g., a standard telephone line.
One type of EHAM system known in the art, referred to as an "active" monitoring system, generates and transmits radio wave signals as part of the monitoring process. Such an active EHAM system is described, e.g., in U.S. Pat. No. 4,918,432, issued to Pauley et al. In the Pauley et al. active EHAM system, each individual being monitored is fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet. Such bracelet or anklet, referred to in the referenced patent as a "tag", includes a transmitter that periodically transmits an identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet). An FMD is installed at each location where the monitored individual is supposed to be. If the monitored individual is present at the FMD's monitoring location, a receiver circuit within the FMD receives the unique identifying signal. The FMD processing circuits can thus determine that a specific individual is present at the monitoring location when the signal is received. This information (which may be considered as "presence data") is stored within FMD memory circuits for subsequent downloading to a CMS. A computer, or central processing unit (CPU), which is part of the CMS, periodically or randomly polls the various monitoring locations through the telecommunicative link in order to prepare reports indicating the presence or absence of the individuals at the monitoring locations. Such reports are then used by the agency charged with the responsibility for monitoring the individuals (the monitoring agency) to ascertain whether or not such monitored individuals are in compliance with whatever restrictions have been imposed. Note that the monitoring agency may either be a government agency charged with monitoring individuals subject to house arrest, parole or probation, or may be a private agency under contract with the government agency to fulfill monitoring and supervision functions.
Because there is a significant expense associated with monitoring individuals under house arrest or those who have been sentenced to probation or parole, most jurisdictions in the United States have now authorized some form of correctional fees to be charged for the monitoring service. Specifically, statutes have been passed in over 28 states that authorize the collection of a fee for those on probation, and in over 15 states that authorize the collection of a fee for those on parole. The recent flurry of legislative activity, coupled with strapped state budgets, suggests that collecting fees from those on probation or parole will continue to be a popular mechanism for supplementing the corrections budget. Significantly, while not everyone favors collecting such fees, much of the opposition comes from those who believe too much time is spent on collection of fees rather than on supervising offenders. Hence, there is a significant need to reduce the time that monitoring agencies spend in collecting statutory fees from offenders, thereby freeing up such officers to fulfill the supervisory function for which they were hired.
The monthly supervision fees charged by monitoring agencies vary from $10 to $265, with the average monthly fee being between $20 and $26. The effective collection rate achieved by the agencies responsible for such collection is difficult to determine, but is probably less than about 50%. In many situations, monitoring agencies have been asked to perform the duties of a collection agent in order to attempt to collect fees that they are owed. Disadvantageously, this has the effect of further overburdening what are often overworked agencies, and results in diluted supervision efforts. Additionally, because of budgetary concerns, i.e., in situations where the monitoring agency must collect the fees in order to stay in business, trained corrections professionals are sometimes asked to be collection agents--a job for which they are not trained nor have interest. Hence, when the agencies are forced to make this request, they end up losing the time of trained corrections professionals in exchange for untrained and possibly unmotivated collection agents. There is thus a critical need in the corrections and supervision industry for a simple, yet effective, system or method for collecting a monitoring fees (referred to herein as the predetermined fee) that are owed by the individuals being monitored without requiring that monitoring agents or trained corrections professionals function as collection agents ("bill collectors").